.svg)
16,952
edits
Defamation: Difference between revisions
m
clean up
m (Removed empty portal template using script) |
CleanupBot (talk | contribs) m (clean up) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
'''Defamation''', at a first approximation, is any form of <em>[[communication]]</em> that can injure a third party's [[reputation]]. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation{{snd}}like [[dignity]] and [[honour]]. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between '''libel''' (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and '''slander''' (spoken off the record). It is treated as a [[civil wrong]] ([[tort]], [[delict]]), as a [[crime|criminal offence]], or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent [[insult (legal)|insult]]s and [[opinion]]s are included in addition to allegations of [[fact]]s, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation |title=Defamation |website=[[Legal Information Institute]] |access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/defamation |title=Defamation {{!}} Definition, Slander vs. Libel, & Facts |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="OSCE Report 2017"/><ref name="OSCE Report 2005"/>{{additional citation needed |date=June 2022 |reason=Would like comprehensive reports for the Global South / rest of the world, similar to those from the OSCE.}} | '''Defamation''', at a first approximation, is any form of <em>[[communication]]</em> that can injure a third party's [[reputation]]. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation{{snd}}like [[dignity]] and [[honour]]. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between '''libel''' (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and '''slander''' (spoken off the record). It is treated as a [[civil wrong]] ([[tort]], [[delict]]), as a [[crime|criminal offence]], or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent [[insult (legal)|insult]]s and [[opinion]]s are included in addition to allegations of [[fact]]s, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation |title=Defamation |website=[[Legal Information Institute]] |access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/defamation |title=Defamation {{!}} Definition, Slander vs. Libel, & Facts |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="OSCE Report 2017"/><ref name="OSCE Report 2005"/>{{additional citation needed |date=June 2022 |reason=Would like comprehensive reports for the Global South / rest of the world, similar to those from the OSCE.}} | ||
Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult{{snd}}as applicable to every citizen – | Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult{{snd}}as applicable to every citizen –, to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures):{{sfn |OSCE Report |2017 |pp=31{{ndash}}33}}{{additional citation needed |date=June 2022 |reason=Would like comprehensive reports for the Global South / rest of the world, similar to those from the OSCE.}} | ||
* Defamation against a [[legal person]] in general | * Defamation against a [[legal person]] in general | ||
| Line 572: | Line 572: | ||
* Threat to injure the reputation of another, if it endangered their safety (Art. 305) | * Threat to injure the reputation of another, if it endangered their safety (Art. 305) | ||
In July 2000, the Justices of the [[Judicial Yuan]] ([[:zh:司法院大法官|司法院大法官]]){{snd}}the Constitutional Court of Taiwan{{snd}} delivered the ''J.Y. Interpretation No.509'' ("The Defamation Case"). They upheld the constitutionality of Art. 310 of the Criminal Code. In the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/94 |title=Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text) |website=Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan) |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> Article 11 establishes freedom of speech. Article 23 allows restrictions to freedoms and rights, to prevent infringing on the freedoms and rights of others. The court found that Art. 310 | In July 2000, the Justices of the [[Judicial Yuan]] ([[:zh:司法院大法官|司法院大法官]]){{snd}}the Constitutional Court of Taiwan{{snd}} delivered the ''J.Y. Interpretation No.509'' ("The Defamation Case"). They upheld the constitutionality of Art. 310 of the Criminal Code. In the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/94 |title=Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text) |website=Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan) |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> Article 11 establishes freedom of speech. Article 23 allows restrictions to freedoms and rights, to prevent infringing on the freedoms and rights of others. The court found that Art. 310 ¶¶ 1-2 were necessary and [[proportionality (law)|proportional]] to protect reputation, privacy, and the public interest. It seemed to extend the defence of truth in ¶ 3, to providing evidence that a perpetrator had reasonable grounds in believing the allegations were true (even if they could not ultimately be proven). Regarding criminal punishments versus civil remedies, it noted that if the law allowed anyone to avoid a penalty for defamation by offering monetary compensation, it would be tantamount to issuing them a licence to defame.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310690 |title=No.509 ("The Defamation Case") |website=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref> | ||
In January 2022, an editorial in the [[Taipei Times]] (written by a law student from the [[National Chengchi University]]) argued against Articles 309 and 310. Its position was abolishing prison sentences in practice, on the way to full decriminalization. It argued that insulting language should be tackled via [[education]], and not in the courts (with the exception of [[wikt:hate speech|hate speech]]). According to the article, 180 [[prosecutor]]s urged the [[Legislative Yuan]] to decriminalize defamation, or at least limit it to [[private prosecution]]s (in order to reserve public resources for major crimes, rather than private disputes and quarrels irrelevant to the public interest).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076 |title=Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel |author=Huang Yu-zhe |date=26 January 2022 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref> | In January 2022, an editorial in the [[Taipei Times]] (written by a law student from the [[National Chengchi University]]) argued against Articles 309 and 310. Its position was abolishing prison sentences in practice, on the way to full decriminalization. It argued that insulting language should be tackled via [[education]], and not in the courts (with the exception of [[wikt:hate speech|hate speech]]). According to the article, 180 [[prosecutor]]s urged the [[Legislative Yuan]] to decriminalize defamation, or at least limit it to [[private prosecution]]s (in order to reserve public resources for major crimes, rather than private disputes and quarrels irrelevant to the public interest).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076 |title=Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel |author=Huang Yu-zhe |date=26 January 2022 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref> | ||
| Line 673: | Line 673: | ||
====Western Europe and North America==== | ====Western Europe and North America==== | ||
Defamation was a criminal offence in the vast majority of countries, occasionally leading to imprisonment or elevated fines. Criminal penalties for defamation remained, but there was a trend towards their repeal. Between 2007 and 2012, 23 of the 27 countries in [[Western Europe]] and [[North America]] imposed criminal penalties for various exercises of expression (including [[criminal libel]], defamation, slander, insult, and lese-majesty laws{{snd}}but excluding [[incitement to violence]]). <ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/> | Defamation was a criminal offence in the vast majority of countries, occasionally leading to imprisonment or elevated fines. Criminal penalties for defamation remained, but there was a trend towards their repeal. Between 2007 and 2012, 23 of the 27 countries in [[Western Europe]] and [[North America]] imposed criminal penalties for various exercises of expression (including [[criminal libel]], defamation, slander, insult, and lese-majesty laws{{snd}}but excluding [[incitement to violence]]).<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/> | ||
Two countries decriminalized defamation in 2009, followed by another in 2010. In another case, there was no criminal libel at the federal level, and a minority of states still had criminal defamation laws. In general, criminal penalties for libel were imposed rarely, with two notable exceptions.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/> | Two countries decriminalized defamation in 2009, followed by another in 2010. In another case, there was no criminal libel at the federal level, and a minority of states still had criminal defamation laws. In general, criminal penalties for libel were imposed rarely, with two notable exceptions.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/> | ||
| Line 751: | Line 751: | ||
{{see also |Canon law}} | {{see also |Canon law}} | ||
[[Christianity|Christian]] [[religious text]]s (such as the [[Epistle of James]]{{snd}}full text on [[s:Bible (Douay-Rheims, Challoner)/James |Wikisource]]), [[catechism]]s (like the one commissioned by the [[Council of Trent]]{{snd}}see "[[s:The catechism of the Council of Trent/Part 3: The Eighth Commandment |The Eighth Commandment]]" from its [[Roman Catechism]]), and [[preacher]]s (like [[Jean-Baptiste Massillon]]{{snd}}see his [[sermon]] titled "[[s:Sermons (Massillon)/Sermon 6 |On evil-speaking]]"), have argued against expressions (true and false) that can offend others. | [[Christianity|Christian]] [[religious text]]s (such as the [[Epistle of James]]{{snd}}full text on [[s:Bible (Douay-Rheims, Challoner)/James|Wikisource]]), [[catechism]]s (like the one commissioned by the [[Council of Trent]]{{snd}}see "[[s:The catechism of the Council of Trent/Part 3: The Eighth Commandment|The Eighth Commandment]]" from its [[Roman Catechism]]), and [[preacher]]s (like [[Jean-Baptiste Massillon]]{{snd}}see his [[sermon]] titled "[[s:Sermons (Massillon)/Sermon 6|On evil-speaking]]"), have argued against expressions (true and false) that can offend others. | ||
[[Theology|Theologian]] and catechist [[Joseph Deharbe]], in [[s:A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion/Chap. II. The Ten Commandments of God |his interpretation of the Eighth Commandment]], gives practical advice to the [[Glossary of the Catholic Church|faithful]]: | [[Theology|Theologian]] and catechist [[Joseph Deharbe]], in [[s:A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion/Chap. II. The Ten Commandments of God|his interpretation of the Eighth Commandment]], gives practical advice to the [[Glossary of the Catholic Church|faithful]]: | ||
The commandment above all forbids giving [[false evidence]] in [[court]]. It is never lawful to tell a lie. In general, forbidden are [[lie]]s, [[hypocrisy]], detraction, calumny, slander, false [[wikt:suspicion|suspicion]], rash [[wikt:judgment|judgment]]; anything that can injure the honour or character of another. With two exceptions: for the good of the guilty, or when necessary to prevent a greater evil{{snd}}and then, only with [[charity (Christian virtue)|charitable]] intentions and without exaggerations. | The commandment above all forbids giving [[false evidence]] in [[court]]. It is never lawful to tell a lie. In general, forbidden are [[lie]]s, [[hypocrisy]], detraction, calumny, slander, false [[wikt:suspicion|suspicion]], rash [[wikt:judgment|judgment]]; anything that can injure the honour or character of another. With two exceptions: for the good of the guilty, or when necessary to prevent a greater evil{{snd}}and then, only with [[charity (Christian virtue)|charitable]] intentions and without exaggerations. | ||
| Line 789: | Line 789: | ||
{{see also |Sharia |Application of Sharia by country}} | {{see also |Sharia |Application of Sharia by country}} | ||
In a 2018 academic paper,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327671103_DEFAMATION_A_COMPARATIVE_STUDY_BETWEEN_THE_MALAYSIAN_LAWSAND_THE_ISLAMIC_LEGAL_PRINCIPLES |title=Defamation: A comparative study between the Malaysian laws and the Islamic legal principles |author=Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad |date=September 2018 |website=[[ResearchGate]] |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> the author (a law student from the [[International Islamic University of Malaysia]]) argued for harmonization between [[Law of Malaysia|Malaysian laws]] and [[Principles of Islamic jurisprudence|Islamic legal principles]]. [[ | In a 2018 academic paper,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327671103_DEFAMATION_A_COMPARATIVE_STUDY_BETWEEN_THE_MALAYSIAN_LAWSAND_THE_ISLAMIC_LEGAL_PRINCIPLES |title=Defamation: A comparative study between the Malaysian laws and the Islamic legal principles |author=Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad |date=September 2018 |website=[[ResearchGate]] |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> the author (a law student from the [[International Islamic University of Malaysia]]) argued for harmonization between [[Law of Malaysia|Malaysian laws]] and [[Principles of Islamic jurisprudence|Islamic legal principles]]. [[Federal Constitution of Malaysia#Article 3 – Islam|Article 3]] of the Constitution declares [[Islam]] as the [[state religion]]. [[Federal Constitution of Malaysia#Article 10 – Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association|Article 10]] provides for freedom of speech, with expressly permitted restrictions for defamation-related offences. | ||
First, definitions of defamation from Malaysian and Islamic law are listed. According to the paper, definitions by [[Muslim scholar]]s can include: mislead, accuse of adultery, and embarrass or discredit the dignity or honour of another. In the [[Quran]], many more concepts might be included. The author concludes that Islamic definitions are better for classifying defamatory actions. | First, definitions of defamation from Malaysian and Islamic law are listed. According to the paper, definitions by [[Muslim scholar]]s can include: mislead, accuse of adultery, and embarrass or discredit the dignity or honour of another. In the [[Quran]], many more concepts might be included. The author concludes that Islamic definitions are better for classifying defamatory actions. | ||
| Line 918: | Line 918: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 29,31,33,39 | | pages = 29, 31, 33, 39 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-001201-4 | | isbn = 978-92-3-001201-4 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227025 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227025 | ||
| Line 930: | Line 930: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 7,8,24 | | pages = 7, 8, 24 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100008-9 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100008-9 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227734 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227734 | ||
| Line 942: | Line 942: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 8,9 | | pages = 8, 9 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100010-2 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100010-2 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227737 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227737 | ||
| Line 954: | Line 954: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 8,9,30,31 | | pages = 8, 9, 30, 31 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100009-6 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100009-6 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227736 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227736 | ||
| Line 966: | Line 966: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 8,9 | | pages = 8, 9 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100012-6 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100012-6 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227738 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227738 | ||
| Line 978: | Line 978: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 7,8 | | pages = 7, 8 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100013-3 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100013-3 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227740 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227740 | ||
| Line 990: | Line 990: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 7,10,29 | | pages = 7, 10, 29 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100018-8 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100018-8 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227741 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227741 | ||
| Line 1,002: | Line 1,002: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 38,39 | | pages = 38, 39 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100242-7 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100242-7 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261065 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261065 | ||
| Line 1,014: | Line 1,014: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 6,8,9,48 | | pages = 6, 8, 9, 48 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100291-5 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100291-5 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266191 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266191 | ||
| Line 1,026: | Line 1,026: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 7,8 | | pages = 7, 8 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100293-9 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100293-9 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266192 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266192 | ||
| Line 1,038: | Line 1,038: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 10,43 | | pages = 10, 43 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100297-7 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100297-7 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266023 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266023 | ||
| Line 1,050: | Line 1,050: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 5,8 | | pages = 5, 8 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100294-6 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100294-6 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265969 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265969 | ||
| Line 1,062: | Line 1,062: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 7,9,34,39 | | pages = 7, 9, 34, 39 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100295-3 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100295-3 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265968 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265968 | ||
| Line 1,074: | Line 1,074: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 6,7,40 | | pages = 6, 7, 40 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100296-0 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100296-0 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265967 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265967 | ||
| Line 1,086: | Line 1,086: | ||
| publisher = [[UNESCO]] | | publisher = [[UNESCO]] | ||
| publication-place = Paris | | publication-place = Paris | ||
| pages = 48,49,52 | | pages = 48, 49, 52 | ||
| isbn = 978-92-3-100509-1 | | isbn = 978-92-3-100509-1 | ||
| url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618 | | url = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618 | ||
| Line 1,274: | Line 1,274: | ||
{{authority control}} | {{authority control}} | ||
[[ | [[Category:Defamation| ]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Allegations]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Bullying]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Censorship]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Communication of falsehoods]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Criminal law]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Discrimination]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Freedom of expression]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Freedom of speech]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Freedom of the press]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Honor crimes]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Journalism]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Journalism ethics]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Lying]] | ||
[[ | [[Category:Tort law]] | ||